Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ron Buckmire
Subject: Majority of Canadians says gay should be able to get married
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:17:26 -0400
From: Timothy Ross Wilson
Toronto Globe & Mail, June 10, 1999
Toronto, Canada
(E-MAIL: letters@GlobeAndMail.ca )
( http://www.globeandmail.ca/ )
Most in poll want gay marriages legalized
53% support idea despite MPs' vote to uphold status quo
ANNE McILROY, Parliamentary Bureau.
Thursday, June 10, 1999
Ottawa - A majority of Canadians say gay couples should be able to
legally get married, a new survey has found.
The Angus Reid Group survey for The Globe and Mail and CTV found
that 53
per cent of Canadians favour legal marriage for gays who want to tie the
>knot, while 44 per cent were opposed and 3 per cent said they didn't know or
were undecided.
The results were released the day after the Commons voted
overwhelmingly
in favour of a motion that upholds the definition of marriage as a union
between a man and a woman. The poll, a snapshot of public opinion, could
indicate that MPs are not in tune with Canadians on this issue.
Support for legal gay nuptials was highest in Quebec, where 61 per cent
were in favour of recognizing unions between same-sex couples. It was lowest
in the Prairie provinces, with 42 per cent in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and
43 per cent in Alberta favouring the idea. In B.C., 54 per cent were in
favour, compared to 53 per cent in Ontario and 48 per cent in Atlantic Canada.
Younger Canadians were much more comfortable with recognizing gay
marriages than those over 55. Two-thirds of those aged 18 to 34 agreed that
same-sex couples should be able to get legally hitched, compared to 57 per
cent of those aged 35 to 54. Among Canadians 55 and older, 32 per cent
thought gay couples should qualify for legal matrimony.
Canadians with more formal education were also more accepting of gay
wedlock, with 59 per cent of those with university degrees in favour,
compared to only 38 per cent of those who had not completed high school.
The survey of 1,500 Canadian adults was carried out between May 25 and
May 30, shortly after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that an Ontario law
was unconstitutional because it said the term spouse applied only to
heterosexual couples. The court ruling stopped short of allowing gay
marriages, and even of granting homosexual couples the same status as
heterosexual couples in common-law relationships. Some legal experts believe
these steps could soon follow if gay couples pursue equal treatment in court.
Those surveyed were asked a variety of questions, including whether
"homosexual couples who wish to marry should or should not qualify for legal
recognition of the marriage."
With a sample of this size, results are considered accurate to within
2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The margin of error is higher for
provincial breakdowns.
The results showed that 56 per cent of Canadians supported the recent
Supreme Court decision, compared to 44 per cent who opposed it.
The ruling means that provincial governments across the country could
have to rewrite laws regarding support payments or alimony, and possibly
other statutes related to adoption, inheritance, insurance and pension
benefits, to remove provisions that discriminate against gay couples. If
they don't, those laws could be successfully challenged in court, because the
Supreme Court ruling sets a precedent that lower-court judges must follow.
The survey found that 44 per cent of respondents want the provinces to
voluntarily comply with the law, while 25 per cent think provincial
governments should wait until the courts force them to change the definition
of spouse. But 28 per cent said governments should use an escape hatch in
the Constitution known as the notwithstanding clause to opt out of having to
comply with the Supreme Court's decision.
People tended to respond differently on the issue of homosexual
marriages depending on which federal political party they support. Bloc
Quebecois, New Democratic Party and Liberal voters were more likely to say
that gay couples should be able to have their marriages recognized by the
state. Reform and Progressive Conservative voters were less likely to agree.
The federal government is looking into ways to bring its statutes into
line with several court rulings on same-sex benefits, and is considering a
plan for an omnibus bill that would make all the necessary changes to federal
legislation at once.
The Reform Party, worried that the Liberals plan to go further and
legally recognize gay marriages, forced a debate on a motion this week that
said a legal marriage can take place only between a man and a woman.
Justice Minister Anne McLellan has repeatedly said that Canadian law
defines a marriage as a union between one man and one woman and that Ottawa
has no secret plan to change that. The Liberals voted with Reform on the
Reform motion, and senior Liberal strategists said they were glad of the
opportunity to reassure some Liberal backbenchers that they have no intention
of changing the law to recognize gay marriages.
However, some Liberals, including Toronto MP Carolyn Bennett, voted
against the Reform motion because they believe it might require the
government to use the notwithstanding clause in order to avoid complying with
possible future Supreme Court decisions.
"It said that we would use all measures, which to me [means] the
notwithstanding clause, which I couldn't live with on this issue. To say
that we would set in stone today terminology, in a society that is constantly
evolving, I was very uncomfortable with that."
GLOBE AND MAIL / CTV / ANGUS REID POLL
RECOGNIZE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES?
QUESTION: Do you think homosexual couples who wish to marry should or should
not qualify for legal recognition of the marriage?
REGION
Total B.C Alta Sask./Man Ont Que Atlantic
Yes, should 53% 54% 43% 42% 53% 61% 48%
No, should not 44 43 56 53 44 36 49
Don't know 3 3 1 5 3 3 3
-**
AGE GENDER
18 to 34 35 to 54 55+ Male Female
Yes, should 66% 57% 32% 50% 56%
No, should not 32 40 64 47 41
Don't know 2 3 3 3 3
SPOUSAL BENEFITS?
QUESTION: Do you think gays and lesbians should or should not be entitled to
spousal benefits?
Yes, should 63%
No, should not 35
Don't know 2
AYE OR NAY?
QUESTION: The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Ontario government's
definition of "spouse" is unconstitutional because it applies only to
heterosexual couples. The Supreme Court's decision says that the definition
of "spouse" should also apply to same-sex couples. Do you support or oppose
this Supreme Court decision?
Strong support 34%
Somewhat support 22
Somewhat oppose 10
Strongly oppose 34
Don't know 1
Source: Angus Reid Group
Toronto Globe & Mail, June 10, 1999
Editorial: The love that dare not be legally recognized
The government's archaic definition of marriage is out of step with most
Canadians
Well, now we know. Marriage is only possible between a man and a woman.
Same-sex couples may fall in love, form long-term conjugal
relationships, become parents and grandparents and be recognized as spouses
for survivor benefits, support payments and immigration. They can invite
friends and family to witness them exchange vows of devotion and commitment,
>but they can't get married.
Marriage is reserved for partners of the opposite sex. That's the way
it was defined in the common law more than a century ago - back when men were
the breadwinners in the family, women didn't have the vote, and contraception
was unreliable at best. Then it made sense to enshrine marriage as an
institution that protected children and the so-called "weaker" sex.
The world has moved on. Even though many couples today choose common
law unions over marriage, childlessness over procreation and openly gay
lifestyles, Justice Minister Anne McLellan seems tied to an archaic era. In
her view, the equality concerns of gays and lesbians aren't a big deal,
certainly not enough to justify amending a law that does not reflect social
diversity. "This government has no intention of changing the definition of
marriage or legislating same-sex marriage," she said in the House of Commons
on Tuesday before voting in favour of a hugely popular Reform Party motion
that affirmed the traditional view by 216-55.
Ms. McLellan may be in step with federal politicians, but she is out of
synch with recent court rulings that have broadened the definition of spouse
to include same-sex partners. She is also out of touch with the views of
most Canadians. An Angus Reid poll, released today and based on a telephone
survey of 1,500 Canadian adults, found that 53 per cent of them believe that
homosexual couples should qualify for the legal recognition of marriage.
That being the case, what would Ms. McLellan's reaction be if a gay
couple tested the definition of marriage on a Charter challenge in the courts
and won? Would she accept the decision and introduce legislation to change
the law, or would she fight it by invoking the notwithstanding clause?
Canadians have a right to know whether the minister shares Reform's views on
this issue, too.
Human relations are complicated enough without politicians making the
mix even more turbid. In Canada, divorce and marriage come under federal
jurisdiction, but the provinces are in charge of the administration of
justice and family law, including separation, custody and access arrangements.
The Justice Minister's stubborn adherence to opposite-sex marriage
follows on her foot-dragging response to amending the Divorce Act. After
reviewing the extensive report and recommendations of a special joint
committee, she called for another three years of consultations before she
>would even think of introducing a report - not legislation - to Parliament.
All of which makes it more than a little ironic that Alberta, the
province that is most conservative - some would say right wing - on social
issues, is ahead of the federal government on formalizing same-sex
>relationships. Earlier this year, the Alberta government announced it was
planning to study the concept of "registered domestic partnerships," where
two people can enter into a formal contract and receive benefits if they
split or die.
Isn't Ms. McLellan from Alberta? Maybe she should go home for a
visit.
It might prove enlightening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The message above was sent via the EGALE Queerlaw-Canada e-mail list.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to queerlaw-can-request@egale.ca with
unsubscribe as subject.
For more info send e-mail to queerlaw-can-request@egale.ca with help
as subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------